Dissolution of Marriage; Custody; Whether Appellate Court Properly Affirmed
Trial Court's Decision Ordering that Minor Child Should Change Schools and
Place of Primary Residence. Under the terms of the 1998 judgment
dissolving their marriage, the plaintiff and the defendant shared joint custody
of their minor son, with the child's primary residence being with the defendant
in Canton. In June, 2004, the plaintiff sought to modify the custodial
arrangements so that the child would live primarily at his house and attend Simsbury schools. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant repeatedly brought their son
to school late and had refused to communicate with him concerning parenting
issues. In August, 2005, the trial court granted physical custody of the child
to the plaintiff, finding that the child's best interest would be served by
primarily residing with the plaintiff and attending Simsbury schools. The
court observed that the defendant had failed in a number of respects in her
parenting responsibility. It noted that until the 2004-2005 school year, the
child had been late to school and to other appointments a number of times because
of the defendant. The court determined that the change of primary residency
would be in the child's best interest because he would enjoy a more stable home
environment and live closer to his maternal grandmother, who cared for him when
the defendant was unavailable. On appeal to the Appellate Court (114 Conn. App. 589), the defendant claimed that the trial court, in determining the best
interest of the child, improperly relied on outdated evidence concerning
tardiness and on factually unsupported findings. The defendant contended that
no evidence was offered to support the court's findings that the change to the Simsbury school system would be in the child's best interest or that he would enjoy a more
stable home environment with the plaintiff. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial
court's judgment. In reaching its decision, the court stated that it shared
the defendant's concern that the trial court appeared to have relied, to some
extent, on outdated information, particularly concerning the child's tardiness
in the 2003-2004 school year. The court nonetheless concluded that there was
adequate current information in the record to support the trial court's determination
and that it was not improper for the trial court to have considered the
defendant's past history relating to the child's tardiness as a factor in
reaching its conclusion. The Supreme Court will now consider whether the Appellate
Court properly affirmed the trial court's decision.